These days, this sign, wielded in New York in 1971, might very well be lettered differently. (Credit: Fred W. McDarrah/Getty Images; click to enlarge.)

To most ears, it probably sounds inoffensive. A little outdated and clinical, perhaps, but innocuous enough: homosexual.But that five-syllable word has never been more loaded, more deliberately used and, to the ears of many gays and lesbians, more pejorative.

“ ‘Homosexual’ has the ring of ‘colored’ now, in the way your grandmother might have used that term, except that it hasn’t been recuperated in the same way,” said George Chauncey, a Yale professor of history and an author who studies gay and lesbian culture.

Consider the following phrases: homosexual community, homosexual activist, homosexual marriage. Substitute the word “gay” in any of those cases, and the terms suddenly become far less loaded, so that the ring of disapproval and judgment evaporates.

Some gay rights advocates have declared the term off limits. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or Glaad, has put “homosexual” onits list of offensive terms and in 2006 persuaded The Associated Press, whose stylebook is the widely used by many news organizations, to restrict use of the word.

More at the link.

The notion that the word “homosexual” has the ring of “colored” would be an inaccurate. Being a more clinical term, a better comparison word would be Negro, not colored. However, I won’t debate that, since the homosexual activists would never even examine that point rationally; they would only yell and scream about what they feel is right.

However, in the Official Stylebook of The First Street Journal, the proper word “homosexual”1 is always to be used; the word “gay,” which appropriately means “having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe,” the definition it had for many, many years before the homosexual activists managed to get hold of it, is the only acceptable definition for the word gay in our stylebook. At The First Street Journal, we do not misuse the language!

The homosexual left are, as you would guess, trying to manipulate the debate by manipulating the language; intelligent conservatives will not allow this to happen. “Gay” might be an all-too-convenient shorthand for the five syllables and ten letters of “homosexual,” but it conveys the implication that being homosexual is all of those things that the real definition of gay means, and that is certainly not the case. Homosexuals go through rather a lot of abuse growing up, as normal people taunt them and see them as disordered. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gets it about as right as I have ever seen it put:

§2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

§2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

§2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

To allow the homosexual activists attempt to seize control of the language, to slant debate in their direction, is not acceptable. The Times article continues, to give a brief history of how the word “gay” was co-opted, and how it is in more general misuse today, but we ought not to give in to that misuse.
__________________________________

The term “lesbian” is appropriate and within the stylebook norms, because it is a clinical term referring to female homosexuals. The term “same-sex” may be substituted for prosaic reasons.↩

15 Comments

1.The term “lesbian” is appropriate and within the stylebook norms, because it is a clinical term referring to female homosexuals.

You got me a tad confused Mr. Editor. Is not “homosexual” also a clinical term? Or is the clinical term queer? No, can’t be that’s just another way of saying “odd”. I could go on, but I won’t. You see my point. As usual the leftists are so personally thin-skinned and so unable to look Truth in the face they twist themselves into pretzels to deny what and who they are. That’s it! We’ll call them pretzelsexuals.

Which is the very reason I prefer dyke to lesbian, Eric. Lesbian is too damn long-winded for me.

I find it amusing that these idiots run around expounding their sexual perversions to everyone who will listen (voluntarily or not) then when someone calls it what it is they get all “offended”. That’s like a NAMBLA creep being “offended” if I call him a pervert pedophile. Or a rabid anti-American communist being “offended” if I refer to him as “comrade”.

While some lesbian groups have tried to reclaim “dyke” as meaning simply lesbian, most people associate this slang with a more masculine-appearing lesbian, which would make it incorrect as a description of lesbians in general. I choose not to use the word.

I simply don’t care what lesbian groups want or like. Likewise, I don’t care what most people associate a slang word to be because quite frankly, they’re wrong. The more masculine-appearing lesbian is a Bull Dyke, all lesbians are dykes. Trust me. I grew up in Center City Philadelphia and can spot one six blocks away. Unless the true nomenclature has changed, that is.

I lived on Quince Street in Philly. That’s between 11th and 12th and Locust and Spruce. That’s the heart of Philly fagdom! We had a pair of dykes living to our right and a pair of fag doctors from Jefferson behind us. We also had another family friend named “Skip”. Care to guess his proclivities? I was taught exactly who and what homos were since I was five. Not because of any reason other than self preservation of a young kid in that environment. I wasn’t taught hate, I was taught caution. And that education served me well over the years. So when you hear some leftist nit-wit waxing romantically about homo’s feel free to ask me what I witnessed as a youth. There is nothing less romantic than to be so screwed up psychologically, emotionally and sexually you cannot identify your own sexuality. I have witnessed their community growing up and it is filled with sadness, sickness, loneliness and in some extreme cases hopelessness and death. And while I will not “celebrate” them I also refuse to pity them. But I would always be of the mind to helping them.

Inverts are what they are, no matter what they want to be called this week. And, any new word thought preferable to an old one burdened over time with shame or tinged with prejudice is bound to accumulate the same objections as it’s buffeted by the rough handling of common usage as the values and utility of shiny newness wear off. Additionally, now toothless old words, once ruled unacceptable, continually resurface once banishment has best bestowed the nostalgic patina of innocence. Up-to-date jargon is ever a clear signal of superior familiarity.

We see the same phenomena with most politically active victim groups. They continually push for social acceptance by demanding the majority stop insulting them with derogatory names. Hence, the sequence of socially acceptable names for minority groups as for sexual deviants. Every successful name change is another small victory for those seeking inclusion within the societies which have rejected them or their behavior.

When I was a teenager I hung around with a Jewish kid, and Italian, another Irish kid and myself. We used to cut the crap out of each other with slang, derogatory names. Well, one summer day on the boardwalk in Wildwood we were “hanging around” and some kids from Roman Catholic came up and turned to my buddy and called him a Kike. When the dust settled I informed the kid that “Steve is MY kike” and he better watch his mouth. There were only three people who could call Steve a kike without repercussions: Phil, Mike and me. Same went in calling Phil a Wop or Mike and me Mic’s. Do it at your peril. Today it’s all politically incorrect. But I for one do not believe in outlawing words, even “bossy”. To expand on “a rose by any other name”, I’d say “sticks and stones”.

Your post prompted me to pull a half composed expression of annoyance at the degeneration of AOL out of the pending bin, relate it to the postmodernist left-fascist project of totalitarian social domination in general, and put it up.

What I think we all find most intellectually fascinating, and politically alarming about this issue when taken in its proper context, is the metamorphosis of the average behaviorally incontinent values-nihilist’s demand for tolerance, into one of demanding social affirmation and distributive risk-sharing from people who have no conceivable interest in his annoying existence.

I doubt seriously that anyone not motivated by some spiritual concern cares what behaviorally obnoxious buggers do to buggers, or about their fate is in this world or the next. In terms of the atheist default position we adopt as a matter of secular discussion course, it makes little or no sense from a rational self-interest position to do so.

Nonetheless, if there is one thing the “absurd one” seems to hate more than anything else, it is being viewed as absurd and generally irrelevant.

Some human specimens seem determined to make themselves noticed, recognized, and accepted as peers, by everyone, or to die or kill trying. Strange pose to strike when the world is such a big place, really. Has the scent of mental illness about it – like much of what the progressive kind says and does.

What I think we all find most intellectually fascinating, and politically alarming about this issue when taken in its proper context, is the metamorphosis of the average behaviorally incontinent values-nihilist’s demand for tolerance, into one of demanding social affirmation and distributive risk-sharing from people who have no conceivable interest in his annoying existence.

Bingo! DNW. They hate the fact that we just don’t give a rats ass. They demand notoriety then bitch when we point out their weaknesses are the only thing notable about them. And that is precisely what makes them absurd and irrelevant.

Has the scent of mental illness about it – like much of what the progressive kind says and does.

Really? What how could mental illness be considered when a leftist pig suggests craping in a lady’s mouth? That’s just par for the course for these rabid, anti-American, anti-Christian, vile, hate filled animals. The scary thing is their mental illness is their damn religion. And their damn religion trumps all common sense, history, fact and logic. Plus said mental illness makes them all “experts” at everything from climate to economics to law to….well everything. Just like our president who has never done an honest days work in his life is worshipped by his minions for doing absolutely nothing.

Referring to gay people as “homosexual” is a practice that’s quickly falling out of favor with major news outlets due the term’s often pejorative connotation and frequent use by opponents of LGBT equality. But Fox News has yet to update its language when referring to gay and lesbian people.

On March 23, The New York Times published a piece exploring the often derogatory connotation of the term “homosexual.” Writing for the Sunday Styles section, the Times’ Jeremy Peters noted that experts increasingly view “homosexual” as an offensive and stigmatizing term, even if many people still see the term as relatively “innocuous” (emphasis added):

(Blockquote, cited in the main article, omitted)

Peters highlighted use of the term by anti-gay figures like Rush Limbaugh, whose comments on the “homosexual” NFL prospect Michael Sam and the efforts of the “homosexual lobby” to defeat Arizona’s anti-gay discrimination bill smack of contempt.

More at the link. But if the far-left Media Matters is hammering Fox News for using the correct terminology when it comes to homosexuals, and properly describing Bradley Manning by his real name and sex, then I know that our use of the correct terms is the proper policy.

Ohio Democrats, still pushing their phony “voter suppression” meme, kicked off a campaign tonight to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. They even brought in Al Sharpton for support.

Sharon Coolidge of the Cincinnati Enquirer tweeted coverage of the event, and it seemed to be the same tired arguments that have been repeated endlessly, until she reported this:
Remember Melowese Richardson?
She was a poll worker who used her position to vote for Obama multiple times. She is one of the few who ever gets caught for voter fraud and was sentenced to five years in prison.

CINCINNATI – A long-time poll worker who admitted to illegal voting was sentenced to five years in prison Wednesday and received a rebuke from the judge, who cited her criminal past. Melowese Richardson, 58, pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting in 2009, 2011 and 2012( that’s three separate events comrade Perry). One count charged her with voting for her sister, who is in a coma. Four other counts were dropped in exchange for Richardson’s plea. During a passionate sentencing speech, Hamilton County Judge Robert P. Ruehlman laid out a laundry list of past charges against Richardson – from witness harassment to theft to assault – as Richardson stood before him. “I’m Melowese Richardson. I take the law into my own hands. I do what I want,” Ruehlman said. “It’s about criminal activity. You are a criminal.”

That was only eight months ago. For some reason, she has already been released (corruption by Democrat stooges). At an event that was all about voting law, Ohio Democrats invited a person guilty of multiple counts of voter fraud to speak – to “welcome her back” and applaud her. They invited her up to the stage, like some sort of hero.

Democrats seem to oppose any changes in the law that make it harder to cheat. Their embrace of Melowese Richardson shows where their intentions actually lie.

I am so surprised that the Party which booed God three times, burns babies for fuel and demands we pay for their contraceptives would honor a lying, stinkin’ piece of shit cheater. Wait! No I’m not. Just like I’m not stunned a person (?) like our “comrade” would be a member in really, really, really good standing with a shit ball party like that.

Support The First Street Journal

Text Link Advertising

A Great President and a Wise Man

The First Street Journal on Twitter

The Right Stuff

Businesses I Patronize

Voluntarily Pay More Taxes

Many of our friends on the left believe that we are undertaxed. If you believe that you don't pay enough in taxes, you can use the button above to connect to the United States Treasury Department, and voluntarily pay more in taxes.